When I was eight years old my friends and I used the following ironclad rule when trading baseball cards: if Player A recently had a good game, his card was worth at least two other cards. The only possible wrinkles to this rule were A) players like Cal Ripken, Jr., Wade Boggs, Nolan Ryan, or anyone on the Cubs or White Sox rosters (depending on who you were a fan of) were exempt because we knew they were already good and B) intelligence from an older sibling or adult of some sort was gathered. For instance, if one of us learned that so-and-so’s uncle’s favorite player was Kent Hrbek, well then Mr. Hrbek simply had to be good because someone with much more baseball prowess said so.
So, here’s how a typical trade would go down. I’d find myself with a Keith Hernandez and one of my friends would be sitting on a Mike Scott and Frank Viola that I suddenly became envious of. Who knows why this was as I had no vested interest in Scott (a pitcher for the Astros) and Viola (a pitcher for the Twins). Maybe my eight year old self dreamed of becoming an under appreciated starting pitcher for a small market team? Anyway, my friend would trade me those two cards for Keith Hernandez without thinking twice because Hernandez went 3-for-4 the night before and hit a home run. If this trade were a math problem it would look like this:
Scott + Viola = Hernandez
However, the aforementioned exception about big name players and members of the Cubs and White Sox change the equation to look like this:
Scott + Viola ≠ anyone ranging from Wade Boggs to Bob Dernier or Ron Kittle
What trade would clear getting Wade Boggs, Bob Dernier, or Ron Kittle? You now have this equation:
Scott + Viola + Hernandez = Boggs, Dernier, or Kittle (take your pick)
Of course, this is patently ridiculous in retrospect as almost every player from those Cubs and Sox rosters were worthless cards. But we were pre-Internet kids, what did we know? It all made sense to us. Jim Sundberg hit a grand slam two nights ago, his card was probably now worth $10, right?
I’ve been thinking a lot lately about my childhood pretzel logic as it applied to baseball card trading now that we have this clusterfuck of a Presidential nomination that belongs to the Democratic Party. When I see and hear things like “Obama wins (insert state name here) but only collects 63% of delegate votes because he only won the state by a margin of 53-47 I can’t help but think of:
Mike Scott + Frank Viola = Bob Dernier
Honestly, why do the Democrats have to be the wealthy suburban park district youth soccer team that keeps score but doesn’t award trophies or emphasize wins? What’s wrong with using the same, ultra-simple method the Republicans use? Their formula is:
You + Majority of delegates won in state = You win that state outright
If Obama wins Illinois, Wyoming, and Rhode Island he should get all of those votes. Ditto for Clinton and the states she wins. Why is this race so close? We should already have declared a winner by now. Instead, the most powerful people within the Democratic Party and the most powerful candidates vying for the Democratic Party nomination are involved in a game that involves ground rules seemingly designed by me and my five friends trading baseball cards twenty two years ago. I don’t get it all. This year is especially maddening because the race is so close.
Honestly, put yourself in the position of an alien asking someone from the DNC to clarify who delegates and superdelegates are, or why certain reporting is different from state to state, or why percentages are involved. To me, this equation:
Obama + Majority of Illinois = Obama wins all of Illinois’ delegate numbers
Makes much more sense than this equation:
(if delegate count > x, then divide 5%) + (if superdelegate count > x, then multiply by 3.25%) * % of state reporting / .273 = victory
Maybe this would make more sense if I were eight years old and sitting amongst a pile of Topps baseball cards all over again. Or maybe this just seems more maddening because the Republican nomination is all wrapped up (and, on the surface at least, the RNC’s method seems simpler) but it just seems like the Democrats could use some simplifying in the process by which they nominate their Presidential candidate. Is that too much to ask? Because I don’t think I have the stomach for any more of this Clinton/Obama race. It just seems like it’s all constructed to make Hillary Clinton win a close race and look like an “underdog” going up against McCain—whom, of course, she will defeat. And then we’ll have eight more years of Clintons, which is basically like saying:
Me + Another Clinton White House = Sad emoticon